Alaskan_Son

This is an odd one... Polyline solids as well as a number of other things get their material defaults from the Foundation/Slab material defaults. You can change that but then it affects a whole bunch of other things as well. Might be a good one for the suggestion forum.

Ya, I think in all the years I've been using Chief I only ever made one walk-through and that was just for kicks. I don't personally find them all that useful. That's just me though. I find still images allow me a lot more control...especially when trying to narrow the focus to a specific item or idea like I'm usually wanting to do with most of my renderings.

I have everything set the exact same as you do with the exception of the walk through codec. That shouldn't matter though. Maybe try deleting that texture and downloading the version you attached. Like I said earlier, maybe something changed during the zipping process...just an idea.

I'm sure Joe and Gerry realize this but for anyone else reading along… If you are trying to write a line of code that will work for any and all possible values (excluding negative numbers for the time being) be careful using .sub or .gsub because for example where a=0.75 and b=20.5: a.to_s.sub("0", "") will return the desired .75 BUT b.to_s.sub("0","") will return 2.5 There are benefits and drawbacks to each of the various methods but in this particular example the reverse.chomp.reverse method has the benefit of only modifying the string if it starts with the specified character(s) (0 or 0. in this instance). If you want to more safely use .sub or .gsub it would be probably a better idea to modify it to something like this... if value.to_s.start_with? ("0") new_str = value.to_s.sub("0", "") else new_str = value end P.S. There's a good chance that Gerry's hieroglyphics contained a shorthand version of that same sequence but I really can't be sure. To be honest I don't really understand most of that shorthand. It's probably a lot more efficient but its harder to read IMO (even if I did understand it...which I don't).

No problem. One quick note regarding the .gsub (global substitution) method. Be careful how and where are you use that as it will substitute every instance of that character pattern from your string. Sometimes it's a better idea to simply use .sub which only removes the first instance of that character pattern or substring. EDIT: I see Joe posted the same thing while I was posting.

Sorry Mark, I was actually editing my previous post when you posted but in short...yes.

Here's one method value.to_s.reverse.chomp("0.").reverse I think there is probably a sprintf function that might do the trick too. There are probably a good half dozen other methods I could come up with too. I think the reverse.chomp.reverse method is probably as good as any though. Essentially what you are doing is converting your value to a string, turning it around, specifying which characters you want removed from the end, and then turning it back around.

Thanks Perry, I thought it was probably about time. I realized that it felt a lot better seeing the faces of people we're dealing with. And I'm not certain how much difference the beard makes with the cold. I don't know, it might do a little. Probably more for wind than anything else. Yesterday I was working out in below zero weather and I had icicles hanging from my face...not kidding. It gets bad sometimes because my breath will freeze onto it and then it looks like I have big honkin' boogercicles. Anyway, I walked into the client's house yesterday (we know the family really well) and Anne had to tell one of her sons..."You can say hi, you don't have to just stare at his beard."

The real reason (from my point of view anyway) for having post numbers is for quick reference without filling up the page too much. Posting the link is a good alternative though and we could even make that much shorter like this... See post here. Thanks Dan The one thing that will continue to be a problem is old threads that used post numbers to reference other posts. We would each have to individually go back and edit each and every one of those instances to clean it up. Its probably not all that big a deal though. I'll use the "replace link with text" option from now on I think.

Joe, you can get the number of downloads for at least your own items by clicking on My Attachments. It would be nice to get both of those capabilities back though. One other capability we seem to have lost was the ability to check "reputation" content. Beyond vain reasons, this was actually a valuable tool to help judge whether not certain things were being well received and found helpful or not. We can still obviously see whether certain posts have been voted up or down but there's no way of easily finding or searching that content.

I have the chair selected instead of the table, but its right here...

BTW, since we're on the subject of rotating polylines...For those of you who don't realize this, you can not only use 3D molding polylines or convert your polylines to symbols to get this functionality but you can also convert your polylines to solids to rotate them. These methods all have their limitations but they also come with certain benefits.

Here's another trick you might like that opens up a few more possibilities. Instead of using a molding, try using a Face and the Revolve tool. This will give you a solid that can be further modified using boolean operations.

Select the table and "Move To Front Of Group". If that doesn't work, make sure the table has a fill applied. In some situations I've resorted to simply creating a new CAD block for the chairs (usually only when they're being placed under a countertop though). Good news is that this should be a whole lot easier in X9 based on some things Chief has hinted at in some other threads.

I prefer building things like that from scratch. This thread is worth checking out. There are others as well though...

That's pretty impressive. Nice work Renerabbit! I'm agreement that Chief isn't the easiest thing to model with, but as you've just demonstrated, almost anything is doable. I would also argue that for a person who becomes comfortable with Chief's way of doing things, it doesn't necessarily even take longer than using some of the other apps. I think that same model would have taken a proficient Sketchup user a good 4 hours or more to model as well. I know I personally actually prefer Chief or Sketchup. Now if only Chief would allow us to convert moldings to solids...

Hey Mike, There are many many ways to do this type of things and it all depends on what exactly you're after. These are just a few ideas but... If you're after simple CAD work for reflected ceiling plans, try multiple copying simple CAD work. I made a quick video on this a while back... You can further modify this technique by multiple copying a double line if you want to display the full width of your t-bars. Similarly you can also use polylines for a bit more 2D accuracy... If you want the grid-work for simple 3D views there are some materials in Chief's library for this. If you want more accurate 3 dimensional textures you can use the polyline method above and then convert the polylines to polyline solids. If you want accuracy for section views and 3D views but the plan view accuracy doesn't have to be perfect you can use the line method from the first video and then convert the lines to molding polylines and then asign a T shaped molding profile to the polylines and set them at grid height. You can also add an L shaped molding profile to the room for around the perimeter and then either multiple copy polyline solids for the ceiling grid or just use one large ceiling plane, solid, slab, or whatever. You can also build the required components out of solids, multiple copy them to fill the room and then use a larger solid to trim them all (kinda like I did with the polylines in the video). This would be more time consuming but would result in a very accurate 3D model. If you want a method that provides a good balance of speed and accuracy for plan views, elevation views, and 3D views, you could create a very large solid with a criss-crossed T bar grid-work, add it to your user library and then whenever you need it, drop it into the model, position it where you want it and then trim it down using boolena operations. YOu would then have to either use a similar method to place a large solid to represent all your ceiling tiles or simply use the multiple copy method to place a bunch of them using polyline solids. You could also use the method in my first video to create moldings and combine it with the method in the second video to create the grids. Then simply display the grids in plan view and only use the moldings for 3D and section views. This list could easily go on. Depending on your desired method, your desired level of accuracy, what style of ceiling grids you're using, etc. you could combine any of the above methods to get what you're after. It really just depends. I guess you would just need to prioritize and then choose the best solution but the main things I think you'll need to consider drawing.. -T bars (2D and/or 3D + plan views, perspective views, and/or cross sections) -L around the perimeter (2D and/or 3D + plan views, perspective and/or cross sections) -Ceiling tiles (2D and/or 3D + plan views, perspective and/or cross sections) -Whether or not ceiling tiles have a dropped profile or sit above the grid. And the main methods... -Lines (2D) -Molding lines (2D and 3D but 2D would be a little less accurate) -Polylines (2D) -Polyline Solids (2D and 3D) -Solids (2D and 3D) -Ceiling planes -And don't forget you can utilize room polylines in the drawing process and can actually use a room molding for the perimeter L profile. Hopefully that gets you started with a few options anyway. Here are a couple molding profiles I made a while back for this very purpose. Once downloaded the should be in your user catalog and titled "Grid L" and Grid "T". Ceiling grid profiles.calibz

Ya, it would be really nice to get this feature back. If you guys could please look into this issue, that would be great. Also, unless I'm missing something, there seems to be no way to create indentations aside from bullets or numbering??

Go here to submit things to tech support... Also, more often than not I agree with Joe but unless I'm misunderstanding him I'm going to have to disagree on this particular subject. I don't find anything wrong with using CAD based 3D objects in the plan sometimes. Symbols are great and carry some benefits, but so do primitives...namely that they can be further modified if necessary. You just have to be careful with what you're doing and keep it clean. The thing I WOULD recommend you consider though is turning layers on/off as necessary to minimize errors caused by interaction with the wrong objects when doing that modelling and/or copying and pasting to/from a blank plan for portions of that modelling as necessary.

I would strongly recommend a good PDF editor to anyone doing this type of stuff for a living...any documentation at all for that matter. Most good PDF editors will provide a watermarking option. I personally use Nitro Pro and would highly recommend it. Its well worth the money.

That item was actually a hole in your polyline solid that got moved. When that happened, I think it stayed connected to the original polyline solid it was originally created for. I found it a little differently than Kevin did though. I just took a cross section, made sure all layers were turned on and unlocked, and deleted anything that looked strange...Before deleting though, I opened the object to see what it was... I would strongly recommend you report this to tech support as there seems to be something rather buggy about the whole thing. The hole is displaying horizontally in plan view but when you select it in elevation view, the "activated" item appears to be standing vertically, and as you say it looks to be the exact same size and shape as that polyline hole you drew in elevation. Actually, when selected in a 3D view it appears as if it might actually be activating an object over in that same area. Super weird.

Here's another idea... It might take a bit of practice to get efficient at this method, but you can: 1. Convert the whole building (or at least the roof) to a symbol. 2. Drop the new symbol into a blank plan and rotate the symbol onto its side so you are working parallel with the roof plane. 3. Draw your your polyline solids using CAD Details From View to get your snap points from. If you aren't familiar with doing this, I posted a handful of videos on the subject here... 4. Convert those p-lines to solids and explode into faces so you can apply different materials to each face (if you even care enough about this). 5. Convert your new rafters to a symbol. 6. Place that new symbol into your plan, rotate it so that its the same angle as your roof, and reposition in plan and elevation views...again using CAD Detail From View to get your snap points. You can really get a pretty accurate model doing this. It really just depends on how much accuracy you want. I went through these steps for a similar situation here... Again, there are simpler ways that might cut it for you, but if you're really after accuracy this is one good way. ROOF (modified).plan

This seemed like deja vu so I double checked and sho nuff... : )

If you ever saved the camera you may be able to find it in your Project Browser under Cross Sections.

Ya, I haven't used Joe's package so I can't attest to that but I can say this... It was really my goal to try and develop something that was universally usable and modifiable. The more I've delved into Ruby and text macros, the more its become apparent that everyone needs everything to be a little different. Plus, people all think differently. This is why I set out to develop an alternative, and more specifically...take a DIY approach that teaches people how to create their own unique set up from scratch. Plus, as an added benefit, I'm hoping to help others delve into creating and modifying their own macros...in baby steps of course. I'm planning on continuing that video series here soon.